• Sonuç bulunamadı

KARA HARP OKULU BİRİNCİ SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN YAZMA BECERİLERİNİ GELİŞTİRMEYE YÖNELİK ÖNERİLEN BİR YAKLAŞIM

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "KARA HARP OKULU BİRİNCİ SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN YAZMA BECERİLERİNİ GELİŞTİRMEYE YÖNELİK ÖNERİLEN BİR YAKLAŞIM"

Copied!
100
0
0

Yükleniyor.... (view fulltext now)

Tam metin

(1)

GAZİ UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

A SUGGESTED APPROACH TO IMPROVE WRITING SKILLS

OF FRESHMEN AT TURKISH MILITARY ACADEMY

M.A. THESIS

By

Abdullah Bülent SÜNNETCİ

Supervisor

Assist. Prof. Dr. Paşa Tevfik CEPHE

(2)
(3)

ABSTRACT

Writing skill has come to fore as a critical skill in almost every sphere of education and social life. There have been different approaches and techniques toward writing instruction and assessment in conjunction with the development of various learning theories shaping the principles of language teaching. In spite of the significant improvements in teaching writing skill stemming from these approaches and techniques, there still exists a gap to bridge between the students’ and teachers’ expectations of quality writing. This problem is brought about by the lack of common terminology defining the requirements of quality writing with clear-cut definitions in both instruction and assessment of writing.

In 1980’s, the pursuit of a better writing instruction and assessment approach than the standard, holistic assessment system resulted in the development of 6+1 Trait Writing model which provides a means to obtain accurate, reliable and useful information about students’ writing performance and to instruct accordingly.6+1 Trait Writing model, a trait based model linking instruction to assessment in a process-based approach to writing, specifies the features of quality writing and establishes the teaching model by teaching of these seven essential traits: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, mechanics and presentation.

The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of 6+1 Trait Writing model on the improvement of writing skills of the students in writing courses. A small-scale research with a pretest-posttest control group design has been carried out on 46 freshmen studying at Turkish Military Academy in 2007. The students in the treatment group were instructed according to the procedures of 6+1 Trait Writing model while the students in the control group received their writing instruction in the way they had in the past. The analysis of the data indicated that the students in the treatment group seemed to have improved their scores in the writing traits tested at the end of the training. In conclusion, 6+1 Traits of Writing model is considered to be effective in improving students’ success in writing courses.

(4)

ÖZET

Yazma becerisi, eğitim ve sosyal hayatın hemen hemen her alanında önemli bir beceri konumuna gelmiştir. Dil öğretiminin temellerini şekillendiren çeşitli öğrenme teorilerinin gelişmesiyle birlikte, yazma becerisinin kazandırılması ve değerlendirilmesine yönelik farklı teknik ve yaklaşımlar ortaya çıkmıştır. Yazma becerisinin kazandırılmasına yönelik bu yaklaşım ve tekniklerin yol açtığı önemli gelişmelere rağmen, öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin yazılı metinde bulunması gereken özellikler hakkındaki beklentileri arasında kapatılması gereken bir boşluk vardır. Hem yazma becerisinin öğretilmesi hem de değerlendirilmesindeki bu problem, yazılı metinde bulunması gereken özellikleri açık bir şekilde tanımlayan ortak terminoloji eksikliğinden kaynaklanmaktadır.

1980’lerde, bütünsel değerlendirmeden daha iyi bir yazma becerisini öğretme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımı arayışı, öğrencilerin yazma becerisi hakkında daha doğru, daha güvenilir ve faydalı bilgi sağlayan ve bu bilgilere göre yazma becerisi eğitimini düzenleyen Yazmanın 6+1 Özelliği modelinin gelişmesiyle sonuçlanmıştır. Yazma becerisinin öğretimiyle değerlendirilmesini ilişkilendiren, Yazmanın 6+1 Özelliği modeli, iyi bir yazılı metinde bulunması gereken özellikleri belirler ve yazma becerisinin öğretimini bu özelliklerin öğretilmesini temel alan bir model sunar. Bu özellikler: fikir(içerik), organizasyon, tarz, kelime seçimi, cümle akıcılığı, gramer ve sunumdur.

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Yazmanın 6+1 Özelliği modelinin kompozisyon derslerindeki öğrencilerin yazma becerilerini geliştirmesindeki etkisini belirlemektir. Kara Harp Okulu’nda öğrenim görmekte olan 46 birinci sınıf öğrencisi üzerinde ön test son test desenli küçük ölçekli bir araştırma yapılmıştır. Deney grubundaki öğrencilere yazma becerisi eğitimi Yazmanın 6+1 Özelliği modeline uygun olarak işlenirken kontrol grubundaki öğrencilerin eğitimi eskiden yapıldığı gibi devam etmiştir. Elde edilen bilgilerin istatiksel analizi, deney grubundaki öğrencilerin eğitim sonunda uygulanan testte yazma notlarını arttırdığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, Yazmanın 6+1 Özelliği modelinin öğrencilerin kompozisyon derslerindeki başarısını yükseltmede etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir.

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Asst. Prof. Dr. Paşa Tevfik CEPHE for his continuous support, invaluable feedback and patience throughout the study.

I am grateful to my wife for being encouraging and patient throughout the study as well as helping with the editing process and to my family for being motivating me to continue this study.

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...i ÖZET...ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...iii TABLE OF CONTENTS...iv LIST OF TABLES...vii LIST OF FIGURES...viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...1 1.1. Problem...1

1.2. Aim and Scope of the Study...2

1.3. Method...3

1.4. Assumptions...3

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE...4

2.0. Introduction...4

2.1. Approaches to Writing Instruction...5

2.1.1.Writing Based on Sentence Structure: The Product Approach ....5

2.1.2.Writing Based on Discourse-level Structure ...6

2.1.3.Cognitive Aspects of Writing: The Process Approach ...6

2.1.4.Writing Based on Language in Context: The Genre Approach...8

2.2. Assessing Writing...10

2.2.1. Primary Trait Scoring...10

2.2.2. Holistic Scoring...11

2.2.3. Analytic Scoring...12

2.3. The 6+1 Trait Writing Model for Assessment and Instruction ...16

2.3.1. Ideas... 17

2.3.2. Organization...17

(7)

2.3.4. Word Choice...19

2.3.5. Sentence Fluency...19

2.3.6. Conventions...20

2.3.7. Presentation...20

2.4. Research Literature Supporting a Traits Approach in Writing...21

CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA COLLECTED...26

3.0. Introduction...26

3.1. Data Collection...26

3.2. Data Analysis...27

3.2.1. Background Information...27

3.3. The Interpretation of the Data Collected from the Control Group and the Treatment Group ...27

CHAPTER 4 SUGGESTED WRITING PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE APPLICATION OF 6+1 TRAIT OF WRITING MODEL IN WRITING COURSES ...39

4.0. Introduction...39

4.1. The Instructional Strategies in the Implementation of 6+1 Trait Writing Model………...39

4.2. Before the Introduction of Traits... 42

4.3. Introduction of Traits...43 4.3.1.Ideas...43 4.3.2.Organization...53 4.3.3. Voice...59 4.3.4. Word Choice...62 4.3.5. Sentence Fluency...66 4.3.6. Conventions...70

(8)

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION...74 BIBLIOGRAPHY...77 APPENDICES...81

(9)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison of pre-treatment scores of the treatment and control group in terms of traits ……….…28 Table 2: Comparison of pre and post treatment scores of the treatment group

in terms of traits ……….…29 Table 3: Comparison of pre and post test scores of the control group in terms of

traits …………..………..…30 Table 4: Comparison of post test scores of the treatment and control group in terms

of traits ………..………..…31 Table 5: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

ideas ………….………..…32 Table 6: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

organization ….………...…33 Table 7: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

word choice ….………...…34 Table 8: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

voice………….………...…35 Table 9: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

sentence fluency .………36 Table 10: Comparison of the scores of the treatment and control group in terms of

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Primary Trait Rating Scale ...……….…11

Figure 2: Holistic Scale for Assessing Writing ……….…29

Figure 3: Analytic Scoring Scale ………..…13

(11)

CHAPTER 1 1.0 Introduction

In this part, first, the problem of the study is presented. Then, the aim and scope of the study, and the method are stated. The last part deals with the assumptions.

1.1 Problem

With the advent of English as a global language, the ability to write well in English across various settings and for diverse audiences has become a must in second language education programs throughout the world. In view of globalized informational society, more importance on writing has been given in educational institutions since 1980s. However, writing is generally considered as a complex process for both native speakers and learners of English as a foreign language. In fact, it is regarded as much more complex for learners of English as a foreign language, for they struggle to attain composing skills while trying to master linguistic aspects of the target language.

Among the many possible problems faced while teaching and assessing writing, one of the most crucial one for students is their insufficient or inaccurate knowledge of what is expected from them and how they will be evaluated during writing tests. Moreover, lack of purposeful weaving of assessing strategies into the writing curriculum is a natural component of the problem mentioned above. What is more, it can be said that educational institutions in Turkey have no great tradition in teaching and assessing writing both in Turkish language and foreign language, which results in teachers’ applying their own standards, a heavy emphasis on grammatical correctness, spelling and punctuation, when they assess students’ essays, especially in foreign languages departments.

It has been observed that teachers in Turkish Military Academy use either general impression marking in which criteria are never explicitly stated, or holistic scoring, as do most of the teachers in other institutions, in order to assess students’

(12)

essays. As one of the disadvantages of holistic scoring, a single score does not provide students with diagnostic information about their writing ability. The writing scores students are given do not differentiate between various aspects of writing such as organization, depth of vocabulary, control of syntax and reflect different patterns of strengths and weaknesses in their writings, which leads to insufficient feedback for students to improve the quality of their writing. Therefore, a new analytical scoring system, which also incorporates teaching strategies into writing curriculum, is thought be necessary so as to improve students’ writing.

In accordance with the dominance of multiple traits scoring to assess writing in 1980s, researchers at Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) developed 6+1 Trait Writing model in response to teachers’ needs for an assessment tool that was more closely linked to effective writing instruction. They created a reliable multi trait scoring guide for the writing traits by identifying common characteristics of good writing in the process of evaluating thousands of writing at all levels. Although these traits have been known and used in writing assessment procedures for a long time, it can be said that a common language for both teachers and students for describing the qualities that are considered important in writing is presented as a part of teaching and assessing writing.

This analytical teaching and assessing writing system can be of great assistance to students in terms of diagnosing their weaknesses and strengths in writing, thereby improving their composing skills as well as providing remedy for them.

1.2 Aim and Scope

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of a multi trait teaching and assessing writing system, 6+1 Trait Writing model, on students’ achievement in writing by carrying out a small-scale experimental research.

Another aim is to demonstrate the relation between the achievement rate of students who are instructed and assessed according to 6+1 Trait Writing model and students who are instructed and assessed in the traditional way.

(13)

This study has been conducted in Turkish Military Academy and comprised 46 freshmen in two different sections, all of whom are male and have the same educational background in military high schools. Both sections have two hours writing class in a week with the same teacher. The selection of subjects has been in a random fashion.

1.3 Method

As the first step, library and internet research has been carried out in order to present approaches to teaching writing, scoring procedures to writing assessment and 6+1 Trait Writing model.

In this study, students in Turkish Military Academy made up the universe of the research and sections 10 and 29 made up the subjects of the study. Section 29 was randomly assigned to treatment group and section 10 was assigned to control group. All the subjects went through the same English education at military high schools.

All the students in the experimental and the control groups submitted two pieces of writing, one in the beginning of the first term as a pre-test and one at the end of second term as a post-test. The writing lessons of experimental group were carried out according to the 6+1 Trait Writing model, an approach to teaching and assessing student writing that is composed of a set of strategies to facilitate the integration of assessment and instruction. In order to support these strategies, students in the experimental group were furnished with suitable materials. The students in the control group were thought writing in the traditional way. All the writing samples, both pre-test and post-test, were scored at the same time with name tags closed so that the rater didn’t know whether he was reading samples from the experimental or control group, or from the pre-test or post test administrations.

As for the six monthly writing assignments, the topics chosen for these assignments were parallel to the topics in their English lessons. One month was allocated for each topic. Students went through the pre-writing, writing and revising phases during this time. Students were able to get peer feedback and teacher feedback before they handed in their assignments. The control group received their

(14)

peer and teacher feedback in accordance with holistic scoring while the experimental group received their feedback in accordance with the 6+1 Trait Writing model. The students in the experimental group were provided with activities in order to improve the stated traits in this model.

1.4 Assumptions

In this study, by the implementation of 6+1 Writing Trait model, an approach to teaching and assessing writing which incorporates strategies to facilitate the integration of assessment and instruction, it is assumed that

1. the students both in the experimental and the control group have the same proficiency level in writing before the treatment,

2. the students in the experimental group will have a higher achievement rate in writing in terms of post test than those in the control group after the treatment,

3. being able to see their weaknesses and strengths in their writings will contribute to the achievement rate of students in writing classes,

4. lack of diagnostic feedback due to the general impression or holistic scoring is one of the reasons of failure in writing.

(15)

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.0 Introduction

It is fair to say that most people practice some forms of writing on a typical day. Almost everyone in different occupations fills some kinds of forms and sometimes writes for reasons unrelated to their work: letters, e-mails, shopping lists etc. In view of apparent pervasiveness of writing, it is not surprising to note its various roles, such as measuring cognitive abilities, as a central skill area in educational curricula, as an assessment for occupational and social demands of society and as a tool for exploring cultural variation. Therefore, the diversity in writing practice and writing pedagogy seems to be inevitable.

Earliest approaches to the teaching of writing were based on the notion of controlled or guided writing due to the dominance of audio-lingual approach which emphasized the primacy of spoken language rather than the written language. The prevalent approach, based on behavioral theory of learning between 1940s and 1960s, was the controlled approach focusing on sentence-level structure. Nevertheless, rhetorical functions which take textual manipulation beyond sentence level to discourse level came to the fore in mid 1960s due to the confinements of the product approach. This development led teachers to focus on teaching such types of text as descriptions, narratives, definitions, exemplification, classification, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and generalizations. In 1970s, the process approach emerged from the studies of cognitive psychology claiming writing to be a recursive process rather then a linear one and to have discovered the processing skills of good writers.

2.1 Approaches to Writing Instruction

Approaches to the dynamics of writing in English have been shaped by the existing theoretical and pedagogical insights of learning theories and application of linguistics to the teaching of language.

(16)

2.1.1 Writing based on sentence structure: The Product Approach

Attempting to extend the application of existing assumptions of second language pedagogy, namely oral approach and audio-lingual approach, to the teaching of second language resulted in the use of controlled composition that focused on sentence level structure. Fueled by behavioral, habit formation theory of learning, controlled composition emerged as the approach to teach writing. This approach aimed at teaching sentence structures by combining and substitution exercises. However, due to the limitation of controlled composition in producing original composition, the use of guided composition came to the fore, claiming to provide students with less structural guidance through models to follow, plans to expand partly written examples.

Prior to the advent of student-centered learning, introduced by the communicative approach, ELT was mostly pre-occupied with the end product in directing its learners towards pre-specified objectives. In the product approach, a student’s attention is directed on adhering to and duplicating models and in particular on linguistic features of language. Typically, students, in classes adopting the product approach, would find themselves studying model texts and dealing with assorted exercises with the aim of emphasizing relevant features of a text. These exercises would entail students to check comprehension by completing sentences or adding logical connections and then they would produce parallel texts based on their own information. The product approach requires that a student focus on model, form, and duplication sequentially. Until the 1970s, product-writing, the dominant approach employed in the teaching of writing, emphasized style and instruction tended to concentrate on error correction and students’ finished products. The regular process of a typical product-oriented classroom includes describing various features of an essay outlined by the teacher, assigning a writing topic, and teachers’ marking students’ papers in terms of spelling, grammar and punctuation after students’ writing their papers out of class time. Hence, the product model is considered to be a teacher-centered pedagogy (Williams, 1998).

(17)

2.1.2 Writing based on discourse-level structure

Controlled or guided composition couldn’t provide sufficient preparation for free composition. The need to extend linguistic structure to the level of the paragraph emerged as a solution to achieve logical organizations and led to study writing from this perspective. This type of study, under the heading of ‘text linguistics’ or ‘discourse analysis’, has looked into the text itself , focusing on lexico-grammatical structures, cohesion, coherence, inferences making processes, and text modeling (Grabe and Kaplan, 1998).

This perspective involves surface features, prepositional units, inference chains, macro structures exploring the coherence of texts. Coherence has proved to be an important element for writing instruction.

2.1.3 Cognitive Aspects of Writing: The Process Approach

Researchers in cognitive psychology, education, and composition whose main concern is to model and explain the mental processes employed in the act of writing have conducted empirical research on cognitive processes, including studies of the actual process of writing on-task (Grabe and Kaplan, 1998).

Crucial findings emerging from this research state that writers constantly shift among pre-writing, writing, and revising tasks. Writing is claimed to involve the complex combination of content information, rhetorical demands, and reader interpretation instead of being a linear procedure. Poor writers and good writers seem to utilize these processing skills in different ways.

The process approach emerged as a reaction to the limitations inherent in the product approach. Jordan (1997) acknowledges that process writing evolved as a reaction to the product approach in terms of meeting the need to match the writing processes in writing one’s own mother tongue. There has been a great shift from correct form and accuracy to individual levels of fluency and expression with the advent of this approach to writing. Replacing an approach which appreciated written language secondary and solely as a mechanism for reinforcing spoken language, the process approach has enabled learners to make clearer decisions about the direction

(18)

of their writing ‘by means of discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby] encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves.’ (Jordan, 1997: 168)

As for another aspect of this approach, the role of teacher which is to provide excellent examples of the model has been transformed into a facilitator in providing formative feedback during the process of each student’s composition. Accordingly, this approach encourages learners to assume greater responsibility for making their own improvements instead of duplicating pre-determined models.

The cyclical and recursive nature of writing, in which ‘ordinarily pre-writing, writing and re-writing frequently seem to be going on simultaneously’ (Smith, 1982: 104), has substituted the notion that writing is a linear process. The process approach puts emphasis on the recursive and cyclical nature employed in composing, where ‘writers are constantly planning (pre-writing) and revising (re-writing) as they compose (write)’ (Flowers and Hayes, 1981: 367). Zamel maintains that ‘planning [for example] is not a unitary stage but a distinctive thinking process which writers use over and over again during composition’ (1982, 206). As the next step after planning, good writers begin to produce their first draft without paying too much attention to detail or accuracy. After the first draft, writers then re-write their papers. Flowers and Hayes (1981) contend that writers are constantly re-writing in an attempt to find the form of their arguments in aiming to anticipate their readers’ expectations, Maimon et al surmise ‘successful papers are not written; they are rewritten’ (1982: 61).

The process approach entails a shift of attention in the student-teacher relationship. For instance, Zamel (1985) points out the tendency of teachers adopting a product approach to writing in spending a disproportionate amount of time identifying and/or correcting surface-level features of writing and their inclination to miss larger meaning-related problems. Moreover, Allwright (1988) point that these teachers are tending to impose their own ideas on learners by offering a model sentence in place of learners’ original expressions, thereby substituting their own ideas for those the learner tries to express. Obviously, this kind of feedback put barriers against learners’ need for autonomy and guidance in developing responsibility for editing, correcting and proofreading their own papers.

(19)

As a result, Jordan claims that in the process approach ‘what [is] needed [is] more specific guidance to help students to understand how to revise their writing and to lead them through the “cycles of revision”’ (1997: 172). This implication leads teachers not to correct learners or to give correct answers immediately in terms of the type of feedback they give. Providing learners with a degree of autonomy in this way enables them to become active participants in writing instead of passive recipients of feedback. Johnson (1988) states the significance of feedback should not be underestimated, for it may ease a student’s learning process. According to Zamel (1985), traditional feedback procedures cannot emphasize adequately particular aspects of writing which are difficult for students to master, such as organizing and creating a cohesive text.

2.1.4 Writing based on language in context: The Genre Approach

The process approach was not universally accepted by some scholars such as Reid ( 1984a, 1984b ) claiming that it did not deal with such issues as the requirements of particular writing tasks, the development of schemata in order to produce written discourse, and differences in individual writing situations. Such other scholars as Horowitz (1986) doubted whether the process approach prepared learners to meet the requirements of writing in particular settings. In view of these reasons, the tendency in teaching writing shifted its focus on determining what is expected of students in academic and professional settings as well as the types of genres they need to master in order to thrive in these settings, which can be called as the genre approach to the teaching of writing.

Davies (1988) also puts forward a combination of product and process in her discussion of the creation of a genre-based syllabus for academic writing. Davies (1988) claims that both learners and teachers are interested in both product and process, that is, in the written language for a specific field of study and the forms of expression acceptable in this field. Moreover, Davies maintains that the learners with the aim of achieving academic success ‘somehow discover…[the] criteria by which the different genres they produce are assessed’ (1988: 131).

(20)

As understood from the term itself, the genre approach to teaching has its focus on teaching particular genres that learners need to master in order to be successful in particular settings. This consists of an emphasis on language and discourse features of the texts besides the context in which the text is produced. The genre based approach is based on the view of language that language is functional. In other words, language is the tool through which we get things done and we reach certain goals. The fact that language occurs in particular cultural and social contexts and it can only be grasped in accordance with these contexts is another aspect of this view of language. Therefore, writers need to use particular genres so as to realize social functions and to achieve certain goals within particular social and cultural contexts. Thus, language in this perspective is both purposeful and inseparable from the social and cultural context in which it occurs. The objective of genre-based approach is to enable learners to use genres important for them. In the light of this information, a genre-based syllabus will consist of a list of genres which learners are in need of acquiring as well as relevant discourse and language level features and contextual information accordingly. Nonetheless, the starting point of the syllabus should be the genre or the whole text although lower level aspects of language are emphasized.

2.2 Assessing Writing

Procedures for scoring the written product are critical since the score will be the ultimate end to make decisions about the students. The score we assign for a writing assessment is the outcome of an interaction that involves the student, the written product, the rater(s) and the rating scale ( McNamara,1996). As for the assessment of writing, there are three principal types of scoring scales for rating essays — primary trait, holistic, and analytic .

2.2.1. Primary trait scoring

The main idea behind primary trait scoring is that it is crucial to understand how well students can write within a narrowly defined range of discourse. In this

(21)

type of scoring, the rating scale is defined according to the specific writing assignment and essays are evaluated according to the degree of success with which the writer has fulfilled the assignment. In a primary trait assessment, scoring rubric is created for each writing task which includes: (a) the writing task; (b) a statement of the primary rhetorical trait (for example, argumentative essay) ; (c) a hypothesis about the expected performance on the task; (d) a statement of the relationship between the task and the primary trait; (e) a rating scale which specifies levels of performance; (f) sample scripts at each level; and (g) explanations of why each script was scored as it was. Primary trait scoring is very time-consuming, for a scoring guide must be developed for every writing task. However, it bears the potential of providing rich information about students' abilities. The primary trait approach gives detailed attention to specific aspects of writing and it enables us to concentrate on one issue at a time; however, it could be difficult for raters to focus exclusively on one specific trait in scoring (Cohen, 1994). Another drawback of this approach is that a specific aspect of writing may not deserve to be considered “primary” (Cohen, 1994). Figure 1 below presents a sample of primary trait rubric.

Figure 1-Primary Trait Rating Scale

Primary Trait: Persuading an Audience 0 Fails to persuade the audience.

1 Attempts to persuade but does not provide sufficient support. 2 Presents a somewhat persuasive argument but without consistent

development and support.

3 Develops a persuasive argument that is well developed and supported.

(Tedick & Klee, 1998, p. 35)

2.2.2. Holistic scoring

Holistic scoring is carried out by assigning of a single score to a written product based on the overall impression of the script. In holistic scoring procedure,

(22)

each script is read quickly and then judged against a rating scale, or a scoring rubric, that outlines the scoring criteria. The existence of a scoring rubric makes holistic scoring more reliable from its earlier form, general impression marking, in which criteria are never explicitly stated. Its wide usage in writing assessment proves its positive features. It is faster to read a script once and assign a single score than to read it several times, each time focusing on a different aspect of the writing.It is suggested that holistic scoring is intended to focus the reader's attention on the strengths of the writing, not on its deficiencies and holistic scoring is more valid than analytic scoring methods since it reflects most closely the authentic, personal reac-tion of a reader to a text, and that, in analytic scoring methods, the attenreac-tion given to the parts is bound to obscure the meaning of the whole composition.

Nevertheless, holistic scoring has several disadvantages: Firstly, a single score does not provide useful diagnostic information about a person's writing ability, as a single score does not allow raters to distinguish between such aspects of writing as syntax, word choice, organization, and so on. Different aspects of writing ability develop at different rates for different writers: some writers have excellent writing skills in terms of ideas and organization but may have much lower structural control, whereas others may have an excellent grasp of sentence structure but may not know how to organize their ideas in a logical way. Second, holistic scores are not always easy to interpret, as raters do not necessarily use the same criteria to arrive at the same scores. Third, holistic scores have also been shown to correlate with relatively superficial characteristics such as length and face validity (Huot, 1990 ). An example of holistic scoring is given below in Figure 2.

Figure 2-Holistic Scale for Assessing Writing

4 Excellent—Communicative; reflects awareness of sociolinguistic aspects; well-organized and coherent; contains a range of grammatical structures with minor errors that do not impede comprehension; good vocabulary range.

3 Good—Comprehensible; some awareness of sociolinguistic aspects; adequate organization and coherence; adequate use of grammatical structures with some major errors that do not impede comprehension; limited vocabulary range.

(23)

2 Fair—Somewhat comprehensible; little awareness of sociolinguistic aspects; some problems with organization and coherence; reflects basic use of grammatical structures with very limited range and major errors that at times impede comprehension; basic vocabulary used.

1 1 Poor—Barely comprehensible; no awareness of sociolinguistic aspects; lacks organization and coherence; basic use of grammatical structures with many minor and major errors that often impede comprehension; basic to poor vocabulary range.

(Tedick & Klee, 1998, p. 31)

2.2.3. Analytic scoring

In analytic scoring, students’ writings are evaluated on several aspects of writing or criteria instead of being given a single score. Assessment can be carried out on such features as content, organization, cohesion, register, vocabulary, grammar, or mechanics. In one type of analytic scoring, each subcategory is scored separately according to their respective significance and scores are then added up for an overall score (Tedick & Klee, 1998). Figure 3 below is an analytic ESL composition scoring profile. (Hughes, 2003, p. 104).

Figure 3-Analytic Scoring Scale

Content

30-27 Excellent to very good: knowledgeable - substantive - thorough development of the thesis - relevant to assigned topic

26-22 Good to average: some knowledge of subject – adequate range limited development of thesis - mostly relevant to topic, but

mostly lacks detail

21-17 Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject - little substance inadequate development of topic

16-13 Very poor: does not show knowledge of subject – non- substantive – not pertinent - OR not enough to evaluate Organization

20-18 Excellent to very good: fluent expression - ideas clearly

stated/supported - well-organized - logical sequencing cohesive 17-14 Good to average: somewhat choppy - loosely organized but

main ideas stand out - limited support - logical but incomplete sequencing

13-10 Fair to poor: non-fluent - ideas confused or disconnected - lacks logical sequencing and development

(24)

9-7 Very poor: does not communicate - no organization - OR not enough to evaluate

Vocabulary

20-18 Excellent to very good: sophisticated range - effective

word/idiom choice and usage - word from mastery - appropriate register

17-14 Good to average: adequate range - occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage, but meaning not obscured 13-10 Fair to poor : limited range – frequent errors of word/idiom form,

choice, usage - meaning confused or obscured

9-7 Very poor: essentially translation - little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form - OR not enough to evaluate Language Use

25-22 Excellent to very good: effective complex constructions - few errors of agreement, tense, number word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions

21-18 Good to average: effective but simple constructions - minor

problems in complex constructions - several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured

17-11 Fair to poor: major problems in simple/complex constructions frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word, order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments - meaning confused or obscure

10-5 Very poor: virtually no master of sentence construction rules dominated by errors, does not communicate, OR not enough to evaluate

Mechanics

5 Excellent to very good: demonstrates mastery of conventions few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing 4 Good to average: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation,

capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured

3 Fair to poor: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing - poor handwriting - meaning confused or obscured 2 Very poor: no mastery of conventions – dominated by errors of

spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing – handwriting, OR not enough to evaluate

Another type of analytic scoring approach is multi-trait scoring system, in which the raters take into consideration of a number of aspects of the essay, yet not in the same way they do in the previously mentioned analytic scoring(Cohen, 1994; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). The previously mentioned analytic scoring provides information by assigning scores on various aspects of the essay formulated into a

(25)

single score according to the significance degree of these aspects while multi-trait scoring does not combine different scales into a single score.

Analytic scoring is advantageous in that it prevents raters from collapsing the sub-categories during scoring and provides a useful tool for rater training (Cohen, 1994).Therefore, analytic scoring provides more detailed information about a student's performance in different aspects of writing. Students’ writings are rated on different aspects of writing such as content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Analytic scales reflect an understanding that has become well established in writing assessment: that is, the importance of using an explicit and detailed scoring rubric. Analytic scoring is particularly useful for second-language learners, who are more likely to show different profiles across different aspects of writing: for example, a script may be quite well developed but have numerous grammatical errors or a script may demonstrate an admirable control of syntax but have little or no content (Hamp-Lyons, 1994). Besides providing more useful diag-nostic information about students' writing abilities, analytical scoring has a number of other advantages over holistic scoring as well. First, analytic scoring is thought to be useful in rater training, since inexperienced raters can more easily understand and apply the criteria in separate scales than in holistic scales (Weir, 1990). Second, analytic scoring can be more reliable than holistic scoring (Hamp-Lyons, 1994). The use of multiple-trait scores can be seen as a preferred option for assessing writing in order to obtain more detailed profiles of students. This approach is believed to have a positive impact on teaching and learning. Nonetheless, it is a great challenge for trait developers to identify and validate traits which are appropriate for each given context (Cohen, 1994). A sample multi-trait rubric is given in Figure 4.

(26)

Figure 4-Multi-trait Rubric

Main Idea/Opinion Rhetorical Features Language Control 5 The main idea in each of the two

articles is stated very clearly, and there is clear statement of change of opinion.

A well-balanced and unified essay, with excellent use of transitions.

Excellent language control,grammatical structures and vocabulary are well chosen.

4 The main idea in each article is fairly clear, and change of pinion is evident. Moderately well balanced and unified essay, relatively good use of transitions.

Good language control; and reads relatively well, structures and vocabulary generally well chosen.

3 The main idea in each of the articles and a change of opinion are indicated but not so clearly. Not so well balanced or unified essay, somewhat inadequate use of transitions. Acceptable language control but lacks fluidity, structures and vocabulary express ideas but are limited. 2 The main idea in each article

and/or change of opinion is hard to identify in the essay or is lacking.

Lack of balance and unity in essay, poor use of transitions

Rather weak language control, readers aware of limited choice of language structures and vocabulary.

1 The main idea of each article and change of opinion are lacking from the essay.

Total lack of balance

and unity in essay, very poor use of transitions.

Little language control, readers are seriously distracted by language errors and restricted choice of forms.

2.3. 6+1 Trait Writing Model for Assessment and Instruction

The trait-based approach to writing in mid-1980s was derived from the teachers’ need for an assessment tool more closely associated to effective writing instruction. Teachers in Beaverton, Oregon brought the research on writing process and the emergence of analytical scales together so as to establish the foundation of the 6+1 Trait Writing model in 1983. Researchers at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL), cooperating with teachers, put forward a reliable scoring guide for the writing traits, which also could be employed to guide classroom

(27)

instruction. NWREL carried on developing and refine the model resulting in the current expanded framework for teaching and assessing student writing that includes the following seven traits: Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word Choice, Sentence Fluency, Conventions, and Presentation. Besides, NWREL developed a set of training materials for teachers in the use of this model to integrate teaching writing and assessing students’ writing skills. The further the model developed, the more teaching strategies were expanded, leading to a comprehensive analytic approach that integrates instruction, student work, and assessment to improve the quality of student writing. Using scores keyed to each trait of good writing, teachers could reinforce successful writing practices and, with the help of those same data, they could design remedial instructional lessons and strategies to address areas where students were weak. This traits-based model for writing and the training package is called 6+1 Trait Writing for Assessment and Instruction.

The 6+1 Trait Writing model has been designed to weave teaching and assessing student writing through an analytic approach by focusing on the following seven traits that characterize quality writing:

2.3.1. Ideas

Ideas constitute the content of a piece of writing, namely the message. Ideas should be accompanied with details that enrich and develop the theme. The details which the writer chooses are to be interesting, important, and informative and to somewhat unpredictable. Rather than telling the readers things they already know, good writers give new insight into an area or provide information in a fresh way.

“The Ideas are the heart of the message, the content of the piece, the main theme, together with all the details that enrich and develop that theme. The ideas are strong when the message is clear, not garbled. The writer chooses details that are interesting, important, and informative–often the kinds of details the reader would not normally anticipate or predict.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

(28)

2.3.2. Organization

Organization can be described as the internal structure of the piece—the thread of meaning and the logical pattern of the ideas. In other words, organization is what carries the reader from beginning to middle to end. It is a kind of road map directing the reader throughout the paper by a strong lead and a satisfying conclusion. It should use good transitions to move smoothly from one idea to the next, helping things fit together easily for the reader. Organization gives writing a sense of purpose and structure.

“Organization is the internal structure of a piece of writing, the thread of central meaning, the pattern, so long as it fits the central idea. Organizational structure can be based on comparison-contrast, deductive logic, point-by-point analysis, development of a central theme, chronological history of an event, or any of a dozen other identifiable patterns. When the organization is strong, the piece begins meaningfully and creates in the writer a sense of anticipation that is, ultimately, systematically fulfilled. Events proceed logically; information is given to the reader in the right doses at the right times so that the reader never loses interest. Connections are strong, which is another way of saying that bridges from one idea to the next hold up. The piece closes with a sense of resolution, tying up loose ends, bringing things to closure, answering important questions while still leaving the reader something to think about.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

2.3.3. Voice

Voice refers to the soul of the piece which makes the writer’s style singular, as his or her feelings and convictions come out through the words. It can be said to be the way the writer brings the topic to life, depending on the intended audience. Good writers’ voice can display variety depending on the purpose of the message and the form of writing being used at the time, namely expository, persuasive or descriptive.

“The Voice is the writer coming through the words, the sense that a real person is speaking to us and cares about the message. It is the heart and soul of the writing, the magic, the wit, the feeling, the life and breath. When

(29)

the writer is engaged personally with the topic, he/she imparts a personal tone and flavor to the piece that is unmistakably his/hers alone. And it is that individual something–different from the mark of all other writers–that we call voice.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

2.3.4. Word choice

Word Choice can be regarded as successful when it includes the use of rich, colorful, and accurate language that moves and enlightens the reader. Correct use of word choice, natural but striking, can be characterized not so much by an exceptional vocabulary that impresses the reader, but more by the ability to use common words efficiently. Good word choice calls for the skill to look critically at verbs and select ones that are active, powerful and energetic, which means being able to choose just the right words to make the writing sound natural and precise. Word choice is what gives an exactness to details and helps the writer paint memorable pictures in the readers mind.

“Word Choice is the use of rich, colorful, precise language that communicates not just in a functional way, but in a way that moves and enlightens the reader. In good descriptive writing, strong word choice clarifies and expands ideas. In persuasive writing, careful word choice moves the reader to a new vision of things. Strong word choice is characterized not so much by an exceptional vocabulary that impresses the reader, but more by the skill to use everyday words well.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

2.3.5. Sentence Fluency

Sentence fluency means the way the words and phrases flow throughout the text. Although there are many possible ways to write any sentence correctly, some versions seem to sound better than others. A piece of writing bearing those versions can be said to have sentence fluency. This does not necessarily imply creating longer sentences, but means using complicated sentences when they would be best and short sentences when they would suit better. It also means creating a sense of rhythm with the sentences and a flow that the reader finds enjoyable to follow along. Good sentence fluency stands out when a piece of writing is read aloud.

(30)

“Sentence Fluency is the rhythm and flow of the language, the sound of word patterns, the way in which the writing plays to the ear, not just to the eye. How does it sound when read aloud? That's the test. Fluent writing has cadence, power, rhythm, and movement. It is free of awkward word patterns that slow the reader's progress. Sentences vary in length and style, and are so well crafted that the writer moves through the piece with ease.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

2.3.6. Conventions

Conventions, requiring editing and proofreading skills, represent the level of correctness—the extent to which the writer uses grammar and mechanics with precision. The rules of a language, common patterns of grammar, spelling, punctuation, paragraphing and capitalization, make writing easy to read and comprehend. The wrong usage of conventions might distract readers from the content of the writing.

“Conventions are the mechanical correctness of the piece–spelling, grammar and usage, paragraphing (indenting at the appropriate spots), use of capitals, and punctuation. Writing that is strong in conventions has been proofread and edited with care. Handwriting and neatness are not part of this trait. Since this trait has so many pieces to it, it's almost a holistic trait within an analytic system. As you assess a piece for convention, ask yourself: "How much work would a copy editor need to do to prepare the piece for publication?" This will keep all of the elements in conventions equally in play.” (http: //www.nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

2.3.7. Presentation

Presentation refers to form and layout—the physical appearance of the finished work.

“Presentation combines both visual and verbal elements. It is the way we "exhibit" our message on paper. Even if our ideas, words, and sentences are vivid, precise, and well constructed, the piece will not be inviting to read unless the guidelines of presentation are present.” (http: //www. nwrel.org /assessment/ definitions. php?odelay= 2&d=1)

(31)

2.4. Research Literature Supporting a Traits Approach in Writing

Diederich (1974) and Purves (1988), who paved the way to move educational research field away from holistic assessment towards to classroom-based analytical assessments of student writing, made up much of the developmental base of traits approach in assessing writing. Their aim was to meet the needs of teachers for diagnostic assessment data and the instruction to base on this data. Holistic scoring in writing assessment, in which raters assigned a single score to represent the overall quality of writing, prevailed in assessment of writing prior to Diedrich’s work. Many researchers recognized the limitations of the holistic approach in guiding student improvement. However, Diederich was one of the first researchers to develop an analytical component framework for assessing the individual component qualities of good writing, which he called factors. Eight scales were identified to describe the features that teachers look for in written compositions (Diederich, French, & Carlton, 1961). The following eight factors or traits describing the qualities of good writing were identified: ideas, usage, organization and analysis, wording and phrasing, flavor, punctuation, spelling, and handwriting. Using an analytical scoring framework of writing assessment in a 10-year, cross-cultural study he conducted, Purves (1988) found that, even though there existed some variation among the scoring patterns of raters from different countries, there was a consistent and strong independence among trait scores, thereby validating the analytic framework .

Writing process is another area of research that had an influence on traits approach in writing. The concept of writing process dates back the 1970s, on which the first major study was Emig’s (1971) research. Before the introduction of writing process, the common practice in writing was product-oriented, giving an assignment, giving students time to complete it, and then commenting extensively on the final product (Applebee, 1986). Emig’s research revealed that the traditional grammar- or outline-based models were product-centered, and confined student writing. She developed a process model that emphasized (1) writing processes that are recursive rather than linear, including planning, organization, drafting, and editing; and (2) writing processes that vary according to task and instructional context.

(32)

Flower and Hayes (1981) classified “composing” into three areas, the most influential being writing process, which they subdivided into reviewing (revising and evaluating), translating, and planning (generating, goal setting, and organizing). They described the writing process as taking place inside the writer’s head in recursive fashion in which the writer moves back and forth between different parts of the process, rather than proceeding through it in a linear fashion.

The 6+1 Trait Writing model integrates writing process as an indispensable component of a recursive set of activities in order to develop the seven traits characteristic of quality writing.

A meta-analysis of a long term research on student writing carried out by Hillocks (1987) can be said to advocate a traits-based approach to writing instruction. After scrutinizing 2,000 studies on the process of writing, he put forward the following six instructional methods generally employed.

- Grammar, teaching parts of speech and parsing (diagramming) of sentences.

- Models, presenting good pieces of writing that show particular structures or modes.

- Sentence combining, building complex sentences from simpler examples. - Scales, training students to use sets of criteria to judge the quality of their work.

- Inquiry, transforming data and information into generalizations and arguments for writing tasks.

- Free writing, having students write freely about whatever interests them.

Hillocks (1987) recognized the positive effect of using scales on student writing improvement. The efficacy level of scales came just after that of inquiry. Knowledge of scales seems to help students develop an understanding of discourse knowledge, the ability to present ideas and information in a coherent manner. This method, of which 6+1 Trait Writing is an example, uses sets of criteria to assess writing. Students are required to internalize the criteria to compositions of varying levels of quality so that they can review and revise their own work effectively.

(33)

Hillocks suggested that the most effective writing program would entail elements that develop procedural knowledge of the composing process (sentence combining); discourse knowledge for the production of coherent written communication (scales); and transformational knowledge supporting the acquisition, access, and generation of information and ideas for writing (inquiry). The 6+1 Trait Writing model focuses on the first two elements, and addresses the third through prewriting strategies.

Collaboration among peers in the process of writing, which DiPardo and Freedman (1988) supported in their review of research on peer response groups, is an integral part of the 6+1 Trait Writing model. They reported that the groups that seemed most successful were those solving a common problem and those writing a collaborative piece (Freedman, Dyson, Flower, & Chafe, 1987).

The use of response groups appears to support the change in instructional emphasis from product to process by providing sufficient time for extensive revision and continuous support throughout the process. Moreover, Vygotsky (1978) claims that response groups support the social interaction considered critical to the acquisition of written language. Other studies have also established that students working cooperatively made significant gains in measurable writing ability over students working individually. Students working cooperatively employed revision as a reconceptualizing opportunity, whereas individuals saw it simply as editing.

According to DiPardo and Freedman (1988), the elements of an effective cooperative writing environment is the one where the classroom is considered as a resource room by sharing power productively, assigning the teacher as a knowledgeable coach, and students as colleagues. The teacher and students are mutually engaged in talking, reading, and writing while giving and receiving feedback at various points in the writing process.

Providing effective feedback to students and helping students to develop self-assessment skills is the main focus of the 6+1 Trait Writing model. The effectiveness of formative assessment by providing students with feedback about their performances to promote student achievement has demonstrated to increase their subsequent performances. (Natriello, 1987; Crooks, 1988; Black & Wiliam, 1998). An important factor in the success of formative assessment is the effect of

(34)

self-assessment based on an understanding of the goals of learning and criteria by which students are assessed (Fontana & Fernandes, 1994). In the feedback model of Sadler (1989), formative assessment provides students with three types of information about a particular performance, the first being the vision of what the instructional goal or outcome is intended to be. The second is an indication of whether a current performance matches or does not match that vision. As the third one, providing some mechanism of how the students might move from current insufficient performance toward that vision. The 6+1 Trait Writing model using specific rubrics and samples of student writing provides students with the structure for such information.

A set of 11 strategies characterizing high-achieving schools derived from Marzano’s (2003) research on effective schools supports effective monitoring and feedback of assessment information to students when delivered timely and continuously throughout the learning process. It should be specific to the content being learned, aligned with assessment, and formative in nature. The 6+1 Trait Writing model conforms to all these criteria. This writing model assists students to internalize and use feedback and to generate their own feedback while working through their own process of writing. The employment of peer revision provides them with the opportunity of multiple assessments.

Popham’s (2003) five criteria for instructionally effective assessments, namely significance, teachability, describability, reportability, and nonintrusiveness, support the analytical approach to assessment of writing. Significance is based on the fact that the areas of measurement were a synthesis of what expert writers considered the most important aspects of good writing. Teachability is the evolution of the analytic assessment model into a valuable teaching tool. Describability means the development of scoring guides describing in detail the characteristics of each level of performance and the provision of samples of student work to illustrate these characteristics. Reportability is the indication of specific levels of achievement by the scores for each trait and establishment of a foundation for teacher-student conferencing. Upon being developed as an ongoing strategy, this model is integrated into the teaching-learning cycle and requires no additional intrusion into class time, which fulfills the nonintrusiveness criterion.

(35)

In sum, 6+1 Trait writing model is thought be an effective writing program which combines instruction and assessment on a process-based approach to writing with analytic scoring procedures.

Three experimental research studies were examined the impact of the 6+1 Trait Writing model on student success in writing skill. The first one, conducted on six fifth-grade classrooms between 1992–1993 school year (Arter, Spandel, Culham, and Pollard, 1994), measured the impact of intensive teacher training on the NWREL writing traits on student achievement in writing. The study found that students in the experimental group, instructed via 6+1 Trait Writing model, experienced a significantly higher increase in test scores for the Ideas trait when compared to students in the control group. The second study , conducted on 76 teachers and their classes in grades 3 to 6 between 2003-2004 school year ( Koslow and Bellamy 2005), found that 6+1 Trait Writing model didn’t have a significant impact on improving student achievement in writing in the treatment classes. The third study, carried out on 31 students studying at Başkent University, Preparatory Program in 2004 (Yazar, 2004), concluded that the students in the experimental group scored higher grades in 5 writing tasks out of 10.

(36)

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA COLLECTED 3.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to determine the extent of the effects of 6+1 Trait Writing model, a multi-trait teaching and assessing writing system, on students’ achievement in writing by carrying out a small-scale research with an experimental design.

In this chapter, information about participants, instruments, data collection procedures, methods of data analysis and the analysis of data will be provided.

3.1 Data Collection

An interventional study was conducted at Turkish Military Academy, Ankara, Turkey. The participants of this study were 46 first year A stream students.

The intervention of this study based on an experimental design, one treatment and one control group with the same teacher for the same amount of time, was the 6+1 Trait Writing model, which is an approach to teaching and assessing student writing. The data of this study is obtained from the pretreatment assessment of both control and experimental groups administered in October, 2006 and from the post treatment assessment of both control and experimental groups administered in April, 2007. Furthermore, additional data was obtained from 6 monthly writing assignments of the official writing course procedure in the writing lessons in Turkish Military Academy.

Although the writing prompts the students are required to write about were the same both for the monthly assignments and pre and post treatment assessments, the writing lessons with the treatment group were carried out in conjunction with procedures inherent in 6+1 Trait Writing model ( mentioned in detail in Chapter 4). However, as for the control group, the writing lessons were conducted according to the traditional approach, which is the process approach with a holistic scoring rubric.

Besides six monthly writing assignments, all students in the treatment and control groups submitted two pieces of writing, one in the fall before the intervention and in the spring after the intervention. Student writing was scored by the same

(37)

teacher using the five-point analytic rubrics for six traits developed for the 6+1 Trait Writing model; student writing was not evaluated for presentation. Moreover, teacher feedback for the control group was provided with a six-point holistic scale. The rater did not know whether he was reading samples from the pretest or posttest administrations and whether he was reading samples from the control or treatment group.

3.2. Data Analysis

This study included quantitative data gathered from pre and post tests and six monthly writing assignments. The data collected from pre and post tests as well as six monthly writing assignments in terms of scores in six traits were statistically analyzed using SPSS 16 version.

3.2.1. Background Information

The backgrounds of the participants in this study were the same; they are the graduates of military high schools whose curriculums are identical. Moreover, the distribution of students in English classes are carried out by calculating the average of their scores in English courses in military high school and the results of a replacement test administered at the beginning of the first year. Hence, the subjects’ level of English can be considered to be equal. All the participants in the study were male. The treatment group consisting of 23 students and the control group consisting 23 students were randomly assigned.

3.3. The Interpretation of the Data Collected from the Control Group and the Treatment Group.

The statistical procedures used to analyze the data are: t- test and comparison of mean scores. Comparison of mean scores was computed to see whether the intervention caused the treatment group to perform better than the control group in the development of quality writing and t-test was employed to find out whether these differences were statistically significant.

(38)

In this phase of data analysis, pre-treatment scores of control and treatment groups were compared in order to see whether there is a difference between the groups in terms of traits. In Table 1, pre-treatment scores were analyzed by the mean comparison through paired-samples T test on SPSS 16. The accepted level of significance for this analysis was p<05. Although the means of the treatment group were higher than those of control group in all traits, the performance of the two groups in terms of traits were considered similar before the intervention since the significance levels of all traits were not found statistically significant: ideas & content [ t(22) = 0.295, p<.05], organization [ t(22) = 0.137, p<.05], word choice [ t(22) = 0.492, p<.05], voice [ t(22) = 0.510, p<.05], sentence fluency [ t(22) = 1.569, p<.05], conventions [ t(22) = 2.756, p<.05].

Table 1

Comparison of Pre-treatment Scores of Treatment and Control Group

Trait Group N Mean S t df P

Treatment 23 3.06 0.627 Ideas&Content Control 23 3.02 0.383 0.295 22 0.770 Treatment 23 3.13 0.643 Organization Control 23 3.10 0.299 0.137 22 0.892 Treatment 23 3.10 0.690 Word Choice Control 23 3.02 0.352 0.492 22 0.628 Treatment 23 2.67 0.684 Voice Control 23 2.56 0.528 0.510 22 0.615 Treatment 23 3.23 0.705 Sentence Fluency Control 23 2.95 0.424 1.569 22 0.131 Treatment 23 3.65 0.681 Conventions Control 23 3.17 0.442 2.756 22 0.062 Note: p<.05

Şekil

Figure 1-Primary Trait Rating Scale
Figure 3-Analytic Scoring Scale
Figure 4-Multi-trait Rubric

Referanslar

Benzer Belgeler

北醫大附設醫院於今年 9 月獲行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局所主辦「協助事業單位 人力資源提升計畫」之臺灣訓練品質系統(Taiwan

1613 cm -1 daki güçlü absorpsiyon bandının varlığı karboksilat grubunun (-COO) varlığını doğrular. CMC1F‘nin spektrumunda da görüldüğü gibi esterleşmiş

Sema Kaygusuz’un Barbarın Kahkahası adlı romanında da bu olgu Ozan, Okan, Melih ve İsmail figürleri üzerinden işlenmekte, yazar böylece insanın doğayla

Öğrenim durumu değişkenine göre Afganistan KOBİ’lerinin yönetim sistemine ilişkin “personel, yönetim, organizasyon” algı düzeyleri ortalamaları arasında

Halk arasında antimutajen olarak bilinen aynısefa (C.officinalis) bitkisinin EtOH ve kloroform ekstrelerinin farklı dozlarının anti-mutajenik ve mutajenik etkilerinin

Bu karotenlerin yanı sıra, fareler üzerinde yapılan bir çalışmada, 8 hafta boyunca günlük 5 mg/kg astaksantin suplementas- yonunun oküler hipertansiyon tedavisinde olumlu

Toward the close of the 19th century, this was overshadowed by an eclectic &#34;cosmopolitan&#34; style wherein several yalis became ensembles of European towers

Özellikle EKG’nin tek kanal ritm EKG yerine 12- lead EKG tarzında olması sensitiviteyi artırır,tanı koyulmasını kolaylaştırır.(6) Pacemaker uyarısı